Gary Johnson It's time to throw our full weight behind Gary Johnson.

[matt0611]

So...even though everything he's ever done has been Constitutional and he's never violated an oath...he doesn't understand it?

GJ was a governor of NM, of course things he has done were constitutional.

My argument comes from his philosophy and rhetoric.

I don't buy into his brand of libertarianism. I have no interest in seeing him as President.

 

[Christopholes11]

I need to know where Gary stands on gay marriage before I can make up my mind...

Here's a quote from his website: "Gay marriage equality is a matter of equal rights under the Constitution. Denying gay Americans the same benefits of legal marriage under the law as those enjoyed by straight couples is discrimination, plain and simple. Fairness has to apply to all Americans equally."

As far as abortion goes that is one of the few issues I disagree with Ron Paul on, but I doubt I'll ever agree with a candidate 100%.

 

[torchbearer]

I will probably end up voting for gary. i may even help his campaign if asked.
or i may just put ron on the ballot again.

 

[Respect38]

GJ was a governor of NM, of course things he has done were constitutional.

My argument comes from his philosophy and rhetoric.

I don't buy into his brand of libertarianism. I have no interest in seeing him as President.

Of course, the question then becomes "would you rather see Obama as president?".

He's the most libertarian candidate that has a shot at the White House. His success in the November could greatly help libertarian candidates at all levels. Heck, if he WINS (which he could, WE NEED TO GET HIM TO THE DEBATES, THOUGH) then that's a 4 year advertisement of libertarianism, even if he isn't the perfect libertarain for everyone, it would show everyone that libertarianism IS and option!

Voting Ron Paul doesn't show that at all.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Gary Johnson supported the invasion of Uganda.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

1. Perfectly fine in your opinion here
2. I don't get the bashing on GJ for the "humanitarian war" thing. He may not have even stationed us in Europe in WW2, so he definitely understands international affairs. Yet, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents congress from voting on "War" for this purpose. Would I personally vote for for a military intervention to stop genocide? No, I wouldn't. But I can understand GJ's viewpoint here. It looks to be legal, it wouldn't be resource intensive, and it's an issue that transcends others as well.

You're talking about stopping mass genocide spurred by government, more than likely in third world countries. Easily hundreds of thousands of lives. It's entirely Constitutional for congress to vote on this type of war.

Consequently, GJ's position is not unconstitutional. You might not agree, but is entirely within the framework of the Constitution to vote on this.

I would argue that abortion is a far greater genocide that he supports.

 

[cheapseats]

I would argue that abortion is a far greater genocide that he supports.

I argue that "deaths" by Abortion PALE next to body counts from WAR 4 PROFIT. Actual living breathing bodies with actual ongoing lives...WHAM, kaput.

Parenthetically, I reject the hysterical premise that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION = BILLABLE HOURS.

BELIEFS = FEELINGS, dressed up in their Sunday Best.

 

[W_BRANDON]

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO 2016

 

[cheapseats]

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO 2016

There is nothing to be accomplished by further exchange between you and I.

But I draw attention of Board Members and the sustainedly GREATER number of Guests to the PERVERSITY of "Gary Johnson Supporters" (NOW THAT RON PAUL'S SON RAND CONCEDES DEFEAT IN THE BID FOR THE GOP NOMINATION) are insultingly inappropriate (or traitorous) for daring to discuss Gary Johnson's third-party run while Ron Paul's 2012 candidacy is still alive...then (hopefully young & inexperienced) Johnson-Basher W_BRANDON skedaddles four years into the future to "mount an argument".

 

[MrWalker]

Hahaha....how you turn debts on 250 000$ to a cool 89 750 000$ + JUST JOIN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY!!!! OH!!! AND GET 5% OF THE VOTES!!!!!!

Our cool friend Roger "Nixon" Stone - undoubtably the savvyest campainge manager ever - explaines it to us "cult-fixated Ron Paul-fanatical-Gary-Johnson-haters" right here.............
http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=492

Never say no too a cool 90 mill.......

 

[angelatc]

Only if the intent is to squash him.

 

[cheapseats]

http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=492

The full article:

WHAT WILL RON PAUL DO?

By Roger Stone

In 1977 as Treasurer of the National Conservative Political Action Committee, I went to Houston Texas to work in the Special Election campaign of Ron Paul, the first time he was elected to Congress. I have long admired his faith in and consistent support of the US Constitution and the proper limits of government. I have also always admired his willingness to go against the grain and sometimes tell the unpopular truth.

Congress Paul was a little disingenuous when he told the Washington Post that he would decide about an independent candidacy for President after the votes are counted at the National Republican Convention in Tampa. Congressman Paul knows full well that the Libertarian Party will choose it's likely nominee, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, at their May Convention in Las Vegas. The Libertarian Party nominee will be on the ballot in all 50 states as they were in 2008.

Paul has clearly committed himself to attending and participating in the Republican Party Convention in August. Americans Elect will have designated their nominee who could also very well have ballot access in 50 states by June precluding another national ballot position from the Texas Congressman. Ron Paul knows full well that an effort to achieve 50 state ballot access - or anything like it - launched after the Republican National Convention is not legally, organizationally or financially feasible. Even Paul guru Lew Rockwell would admit this.

In truth, Congressman Paul had his son's aspirations and place in the Republican establish hierarchy in mind when he decided not to pursue a third-party candidacy in 2012. Rand Paul clear;y has his own Presidential ambitions but a 2016 US Senate re-election and Kentucky's early filing deadline may make this problematic.

Here is Ron Paul's dilemma. He cannot endorse Mitt Romney without destroying the very essence of what Ron Paul is - a man of principle rather than a politician playing party ball. Such an endorsement would truly demoralize and enrage many of Ron Paul's supporters and donors.

At the same time, Governor Gary Johnson will be calling for the "continuation of the Ron Paul revolution" in the fall election presumably with a Vice Presidential running mate access to funds and / or celebrity.

A new PPP poll shows Johnson - who is yet to receive any substantial national media coverage, other than this excellent clip on the Colbert Report is at 7% in a national race with Obama and Romney. A previous PPP poll showed Johnson at 9%, both numbers are within the margin of error. That Johnson has an excellent opportunity with additional media exposure to get to 10% of the vote or more.

According to PPP, the votes Johnson receives come disproportionately from Romney, although he does poll 2% from Obama. 39% of Johnson voters would support Romney if Johnson weren't in the picture, while only 18% would go for Obama. When Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is included, Obama's lead over Romney expands to 7 points at 46-39, with Johnson taking 7%. Gary Johnson can clearly have an impact of the 2012 election.

If Johnson gets 5% in 2012, the Libertarian nominee in 2016 will be eligible to get the same $90 million that the Republicans and Democrats get from the Federal Treasury for the General Election. If Johnson and his running mate poll at 15% they would both have to be admitted to the televised presidential debates.

Remembering that Congressman Paul and Governor Johnson are the only two candidates who oppose the war in Afghanistan, would truly slash Federal spending and debt, eliminate taxes, kill the Patriot Act, end the expensive and failed "War on Drugs," and would legalize marijuana, it would be hard to Congressman Paul to explain his endorsement of Mitt Romney.

The important question really is not "what will Ron Paul do" but "where do Ron Paul voters go?" The Ron Paul voters have disdain for Romney as a big government establishment Republican who is wrong on foreign policy, civil liberties, and economics. It is Gary Johnson's job to attract these voters, and he will. Ron Paul's endorsement of Romney would not wins these votes but Ron Paul's endorsement of Johnson will cement a movement and set the stage for history making.

At the same time, Ron Paul's failure to endorse the one candidate who is carrying the torch for his agenda in the name of partisan politics would be hard to fathom.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

Only the Liberty movement can get this guy to the 15% he needs to get in the national debates.

I think it's obvious we need to try, and there is nothing to lose from trying. Rand Paul and the national delegates are building goodwill for us in the Republican Party, so the rest of us need to refocus for the next 5 months on Gary Johnson. He's already at 8% nationally, we just need to add 7%. I think if we utilize all the tools we have for Dr. Paul, we can make this work.

So, what I want to hear from all of you is, if you agree, how do we get started? If you disagree, why?

Here's the daily show interview from last week. I think it proves that he's serious and ready to present a focused message to the American people.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-5-2012/gary-johnson

It would be a disgrace if the Presidential debates were Romney and Obama and no Gary Johnson. The less chance RP has to get the nomination the more I like Johnson. It is a much better alternative to sitting it out. I have not ruled out writting in RP. Too many things need to happen first. I gotta see what happens at the GOP convention before I throw full support behind GJ.

+ rep for bring the topic up.

 

[cheapseats]

Never say no too a cool 90 mill.......

"If Johnson gets 5% in 2012, the Libertarian nominee in 2016 will be eligible to get the same $90 million that the Republicans and Democrats get from the Federal Treasury for the General Election."


I believe venerated-for-his-principles Ron Paul would judge your post WILLFULLY MISLEADING, if pressed.

Naturally, he prefers not to be pressed. Kinda UNNATURALLY, his Followers prefer not to press him. So there is no way to PROVE MY BELIEFS.

Just like Abortion Hysterics can never prove that life begins at conception or, indeed, that God exists.

 

[anaconda]

Isn't there a vote threshold for getting the Libertarian Party(or any party)on the ballot in 50 states for 2016? Like 5% or something? The Ron Paul supporters probably could make that happen. That might be a worthwhile goal for expanding the dialog. And it might make the Republicans in 2016 more vulnerable and more willing to deal, so as to avoid defections. Like, say, someone like Rand bolting from the GOP to run as the Libertarian with 50 state access. Or even Ron stepping up and doing it at age 80.

 

[MrWalker]

Just like Abortion Hysterics can never prove that life begins at conception or, indeed, that God exists.

Right, and to use another metafor "Just like Gary Johnson cant win 5% of the votes in an Presidential election".

Meanwhile i´ll just have to hope that no one like Roger Stone ever "throws his full weight in" behind me......i think that would really hurt.......http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_toobin

 

[cheapseats]

Isn't there a vote threshold for getting the Libertarian Party(or any party)on the ballot in 50 states for 2016? Like 5% or something? The Ron Paul supporters probably could make that happen. That might be a worthwhile goal for expanding the dialog. And it might make the Republicans in 2016 more vulnerable and more willing to deal, so as to avoid defections. Like, say, someone like Rand bolting from the GOP to run as the Libertarian with 50 state access. Or even Ron stepping up and doing it at age 80.

From the article:

"The Libertarian Party nominee will be on the ballot in all 50 states as they were in 2008."

and

"A new PPP poll shows Johnson - who is yet to receive any substantial national media coverage, other than this excellent clip on the Colbert Report is at 7% in a national race with Obama and Romney. A previous PPP poll showed Johnson at 9%, both numbers are within the margin of error. That Johnson has an excellent opportunity with additional media exposure to get to 10% of the vote or more."

 

[Respect38]

Only if the intent is to squash him.

To remove the last remaining liberty candidate running for the White House?

How silly.

 

[cheapseats]

To remove the last remaining liberty candidate running for the White House?

How silly.

No, no, no...YOU are the Silly Rabbit.

PRO-CHOICE LIBERTARIANS should have no problem getting into bed with Abortion Hysterics who propose some truly DRACONIAN measures of "protecting Liberty", but it is OUTTA THE QUESTION that Abortion Hysterics who don't lose a wink of sleep over War Dead could put their favorite red herring Wedge Issue on a back burner for even ONE election.

 

[WhistlinDave]

First and foremost Sailingaway is female. Secondly, Ron has bowed out of the race. He, his son, Doug, and the campaign has seceded the race. It's only a few stubborn people here that think we are going to pull some crazy upset at the convention. Even if we did, what legislature do we have to work with?

Finally, this discussion is under opposing candidates. Entirely valid discussion. The fact of the matter is Ron won't be on the ballot. GJ will be.

And you're absurd claim that I "bash" Ron Paul is insulting, untrue, and nonsensical. It's clearly attempt to try and discredit it, though you're not the first sore-loser supporter to do so. I've stated time and time again that I would absolutely love to vote for Paul if he were on the ballot. I stated time and time again I'd support him so long as he stayed in the race. I maxed out within the first week of him announcing and funneled a ton of money to PACS, likely more money than you and my doubters donated to Paul COMBINED. Additionally, I phonebanked and worked heavily at my local level, and have been mulling a political run. To infer I bash Ron Paul is DISGUSTING, IGNORANT, and FOOLISH.

Further, since Ron is not running, the best option FAR AND AWAY is Gary Johnson. I've not said he's the "cat's meow" but those slandering his name have yet to show me one piece of evidence confirming he would be an unconsitutional president. As governor, he's already made all of the right calls. Always balanced the budget, always vetoed spending, and never raised taxes. He's also the highest level of government official to ever call for drug legalization. He's stated he would sign a bill to end the fed if it crossed his desk.

I'm waiting for someone to show me one issue, with evidence, he's bad/wrong on. Instead, a rational individual can see the "haters" clearly dislike GJ simply because he's not RP.

And, I'll remind you the Libertarians were pushing for either GJ or Bill Still. Bill still wanted to maintain government programs and is against gold money. Remember that. Bill Still wasn't the libertarian.

Well I must've missed something here because you're speaking of events I'm completely unaware of. Can you please post for me a video of Ron Paul stating that he is completely out, not interested in the nomination any more, he is not running any more, and preferably that he is endorsing someone? (An endorsement of some other candidate is the best indicator Ron Paul truly considers himself out of the race.)

Please provide some irrefutable evidence to back up your conclusions here. If you cannot, then I suggest you hold your misinterpretations and opinions and stop stating them as if they were fact. Thank you.

I appreciate the efforts you've made, but considering that, I'm surprised you've chosen defeat so early. Nobody is the nominee today, or tomorrow, or the day after that. Nobody becomes the nominee until the national convention in Tampa. However unlikely you think it is that Ron Paul can get the nomination, you cannot say today we have a nominee. We do not.

When Ron Paul endorses and/or supports Gary Johnson, then I will. Until that happens, asking me or anyone here to do so is premature and a waste of time.